2022 Supreme(SC) 20

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra and Another – Appellants
Versus
Bhagwan and Others – Respondents
With
The State of Maharashtra and Others – Appellants
Versus
Sudhakar Namdeo Gaikwad and Others – Respondents
With
The State of Maharashtra and Another – Appellants
Versus
Uttam and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7682-7684, 7685-7687, 7688-7690 of 2021
Decided On : 10-01-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Pension – State Government and Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par – Court should refrain from interfering with policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications.
(2) Pension – Employees of WALMI which is an independent autonomous body registered under Societies Act are not entitled to pensionary benefits.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Pension – WALMI is an independent autonomous body and a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Administration and management of WALMI is through its Governing Council – WALMI has its own Rules (WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980), governing service conditions and benefits available to employees of WALMI – Even State is not Disciplinary Authority of employees of WALMI – Employees of autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, same service benefits on par with Government employees – Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted Government Service Rules and/or in Governing Council there may be a representative of Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with State/Central Government employees – This is more particularly, when employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions – State Government and Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par – Court should refrain from interfering with policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications – Whether to grant certain benefits to employees or not should be left to expert body and undertakings and Court cannot interfere lightly – Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences. (Paras 9.1, 10.2 and 10.4)

(B) Service Law – Pension – Employees of WALMI which is an independent autonomous body registered under Societies Act are not entitled to pensionary benefits – Merely because WALMI has a fund with itself, it cannot be a ground to extend pensionary benefits – Grant of pensionary benefits is not a one-time payment – Grant of pensionary benefits is a recurring monthly expenditure and there is a continuous liability in future towards pensionary benefits – Merely because at one point of time, WALMI might have certain funds does not mean that for all times to come, it can bear such burden of paying pension to all its employees – In any case, it is ultimately for State Government and Society (WALMI) to take their own policy decision whether to extend pensionary benefits to its employees or not – Interference by Judiciary in such a policy decision having financial implications and/or having a cascading effect is not at all warranted and justified – Impugned common judgment and order passed by High Court directing State to extend pensionary benefits to employees of WALMI is unsustainable, both in law and on facts – Impugned common judgment and order passed by High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly quashed and set aside. (Paras 10.7 and 11)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 20.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.748 of 2014 and other connected writ petitions by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has directed the State Government to extend pensionary benefits to employees of Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI), State of Maharashtra and another have preferred present appeals. The State preferred review applications which came to be dismissed. Short question, which is posed for consideration of this Court is “whether employees of the WALMI are entitled to the pensionary benefits on par with the State Government employees?”

Findings of Court:

Observations made by the High court that as the salary and allowances payable to the employees of WALMI are being paid out of Consolidated Fund of the State and/or that the WALMI is getting grant from the Government are all irrelevant considerations, so far as extending the pensionary benefits to its employees is concerned. WALMI has to run its administration from its own financial resources. WALMI has no financial powers of imposing any tax like a State and/or the Central Government and WALMI has to depend upon the grants to be made by the State Government.

Result : Appeals allowed.